What about the Iraqis?

Accordint tot he Washington Institute for Near East Policy | January 17, 2003: Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate active in Iraqi Kurdistan since September 2001. In August 2001, leaders of several Kurdish Islamist factions reportedly visited the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan with the goal of creating an alternate base for the organization in northern Iraq. Soon thereafter, Ansar al-Islam was created using $300,000 to $600,000 in al-Qaeda seed money, in addition to funds from Saudi Arabia.

Approximately 30 al-Qaeda members reportedly joined Ansar upon the group's inception in 2001; that number is now as high as 120. Armed with heavy machine guns, mortars, and antiaircraft weaponry, the group fulfills al-Qaeda lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri's vision of a global jihad. Ansar's goal is to disrupt civil society and create a Taliban-like regime in northern Iraq.

Strange you didn't know this Jeff, since you know so much?

Honestly, Jeff, your arguments DO NOT MAKE SENSE! You wrote: "If they (North Korea) pose the same threat as Iraq supposedly did prewar, then why give diplomacy a chance to work there? The US should be going in guns a blazing and asking questions later, right?"

WE GAVE IRAQ 12 YEARS OF DIPLOMACY! It was quite clear that no more diplomacy was going to work. That is NOT the case with North Korea. Had we gone "guns a blazing and asking questions later" as you state, North Korea would certainly have invaded South Korea or worse...they might have nuked South Korea. But instead diplomacy has worked. North Korea has shut down their nuclear facility and we ARE MAKING PROGRESS! We WERE NEVER going to progress with Saddam Hussein.

Another difference between Iraq and North Korea is that Germany, France and Russia convinced Iraq that the United States would never invade. Therefore, Saddam Hussein had no incentive to comply. He was wrong!! China on the other hand warned North Korea that the embargo was only going to get worse if North Korea didn't comply. With China's leverage, North Korea finally agreed to comply.

You can't use the same formula for every country. Some countries will only respond to force. Others are much more willing to talk.

Jeff, WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS SEVERAL TIMES. I WILL REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME. Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq before the invasion. READ Congress' Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq of October 2002! ONE CLAUSE STATES: "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ARE KNOWN TO BE IN IRAQ;"

This resolution was passed by Congress (81 Democrats in the House and 29 Democrats in the Senate voting for the resolution) and signed by President Bush a full FIVE months before we invaded Iraq. NOTICE it states, "are known to be in Iraq."

“Again what is a Iraqi life worth? How many more people died in order for what you consider diplomacy worked. How long did the British sit and wait for dip[lomcay to work with Hitler. When Chamberlin came out of that aircraft and wave a piece of paper saying peace was in hand. How long do you let people sit and wait in to decide if diplomacy is going to wait?”

Again, comparing Hitler and Saddam is not the same. Hitler was aggressively attacking neighbors and allies of the US. At the time of the war, was Saddam attacking anyone? No, his military capabilities were limited to none.

“What about the fact that El Qeada was already in Iraq?”

Wrong!!! No fact at all. In fact many, many reports say that Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist… well at least until after the war started. Remember what I said in my original post, no Iraq Al Qaeda 9/11 load because we all know that’s one of lies, or misrepresentations, the Bush administration has made.

“Reports then was saying that he was reconstituting his WMD’s.
“Then again diplomacy could have killed more people in both the US and Iraq. We did not know if he was reconsituting his program or not.”

Wrong again… one of the final UN meeting before the war says that they have been complying in declaring and destroying their weapons.

“SO concerned about the Iraqi people dieing, don’t you think we have done them a disservice by jumping the gun?”
“Not according to the Kurds whose lives have improve since the end of Saddam’s dictaorship!”
And how many Iraqi lives have not improved? I would bet that many more sects say the exact opposite.
Did you not have a comment on diplomacy prevailing in North Korea? Even though we KNEW for sure they have nuclear capability and in the US would be in striking distance to a attack from NK, yet we did not attack…Oh,oh, I know.. no oil. I think Kim Jong-il is just a crazy and ruthless as Saddam was. NK is number three on the Buhs’s “Axis of Evil”.
“North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.” Source Wikipedia. – Bush SOU 2002.
If they pose the same threat as Iraq supposedly did prewar, then why give diplomacy a chance to work there? The US should be going in guns a blazing and asking questions later, right?

Jeff, you wrote: "So what if diplomacy would have taken 3, 5, 7 more years?" NO AMOUNT OF DIPLOMACY WAS GOING TO WORK. Saddam Hussein continually defied the UN and he had no intentions of every complying. His oil-for-food scandal left millions of Iraqis starving while he reaped in billions. In addition, based on estimates from The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq and Human Rights Watch, between 70-125 Iraqis PER DAY were killed by Saddam Hussein and his sons while he was in power. They weren't just blown up by car bombs, IEDs or suicide bombers, they were raped and brutally tortured BEFORE being killed. Right Jeff, let's bring back the good ol' days.

Jeff, you also wrote: "Saddam was not a threat to the US." HOW MANY TIMES MUST I REPEAT THIS? Go back and read the statements from the Democrats in 1998. Many of them said Saddam Hussein was a threat to OUR national security. And some even said he was an "imminent threat" to the United States. That was not President Bush...it was two years before he became President.

But even more recently (and less than one month prior to the invasion of Iraq), on Feb, 28 2003, in an interview between Bill Moyers and former Amb. JOSEPH WILSON (yes, one and the same, from the Valerie Plame fiasco), Moyers asked Wilson: "President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. 'The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away.' You agree with that?" Wilson responded with, "I agree with that. Sure."

Moyers then followed up with: "'The danger must be confronted.' You agree with that? 'We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat.' You agree with that?" Wilson responded with: "I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true."

And then on Dec. 16, 2003, Sen. John Kerry stated: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President. No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

“you mention that Saddam was under 12 years of diplomacy, what is more important TIME or LIVES of the Iraqis and American soldiers? So what if diplomacy would have taken 3, 5, 7 more years? Does time outweigh people lives?”

Again what is a Iraqi life worth? How many more people died in order for what you consider diplomacy worked. How long did the British sit and wait for dip[lomcay to work with Hitler. When Chamberlin came out of that aircraft and wave a piece of paper saying peace was in hand. How long do you let people sit and wait in to decide if diplomacy is going to wait?

“what if the US would have waited and it took two years more of diplomacy, what harm would have it done?”

It would have prove to the world and the islamic community as a whole that we were a paper tiger, all talk. Dictators like Saddam and Hitler do not respect weaken leaders. What about the fact that El Qeada was already in Iraq?

“All reports say the Saddam was not reconstituting his WMD.”

Of course that is Hind site. Reports then was saying that he was reconsituting his WMD’s. We not sure he used then in the Iran-Iraq war and use then on the Kurds.

“The US would not be in the situation we are today”

Not the US could have had it worsem we could had Saddam and Bin Laden joining forces to promote more terrorism in the States. Perhaps a nuclear attack and

“SO concerned about the Iraqi people dieing, don’t you think we have done them a disservice by jumping the gun?”

Not according to the Kurds whose lives have improve since the end of Saddam’s dictaorship!

“You might say Saddam was being defiant and not letting UN inspectors in, so. Continued sanctions and continued diplomacy might have and most likely would have ended up with the truth coming out (no WMD) without the need for war and without the need for so many lives being ended prematurely, both Iraqis and Americans.”

Then again diplomacy could have killed more people in both the US and Iraq. We did not know if he was reconsituting his program or not.

Yes, Saddam would still be in power, but so are many other ruthless dictators around the world.

That is irrelevant how many dictatorships there are in the world currently. Of course there was allot of dictatorships durning Hitler’s day. But it was Hitler that was a major threat to Europe and later us.

No matter how many Dictators that exist in the world, the ones that threaten the most lives and the ones that could create the most havoc are the ones that get most attention.

Is lives more important than time and what is a Iraqi Life worth?

James – you mention that Saddam was under 12 years of diplomacy, what is more important TIME or LIVES of the Iraqis and American soldiers? So what if diplomacy would have taken 3, 5, 7 more years? Does time outweigh people lives? I would bet many parents that have had their kids KIA in Iraq might disagree. Saddam was not a threat to the US. And don’t even start to say Al Qaeda and Iraq and 9/11 load. I mean, what if the US would have waited and it took two years more of diplomacy, what harm would have it done? All reports say the Saddam was not reconstituting his WMD. The US would not be in the situation we are today. So back to the question of the blog, since the conservatives are SO concerned about the Iraqi people dieing, don’t you think we have done them a disservice by jumping the gun? You might say Saddam was being defiant and not letting UN inspectors in, so. Continued sanctions and continued diplomacy might have and most likely would have ended up with the truth coming out (no WMD) without the need for war and without the need for so many lives being ended prematurely, both Iraqis and Americans. Yes, Saddam would still be in power, but so are many other ruthless dictators around the world. North Korea kicked out UN inspectors when it was absolutely known that they have nuclear capability and if developed into weapons would have the capability of reaching the US. But, you know what? We did not strike and gave diplomacy a chance rather the need for military action. So what about the Iraqis and diplomacy? Is time more important than lives?

Jeff, now we're back to to the place we started.

I thought we were making such great progress when you started softening your claims with "oil is A reason".

However, we're back to it being the ONLY reason.

We're back to square one....

However, it's plainly obvious to all objective readers: you are completely unable to prove your point.

Simply repeating the same unprovable conspiracy theory won't make it true.

Jeff, I didn't discredit Clark, He did it to himself.

Hunter, a few post ago you said the Iraqi war ended with the Iraqi Army giving up. So if that is the case then you would agree with President Bush that major operations ended on May 1, 2003?

Another question, with all the troubles this has cause president why would anyone lie about the Iraqi situation? I mean what does Bush get out of this situation with a majority liberal press that hates him?

Seems to me it either a no win situation that he entered the situation with iraq or that it is totally a situation where he had the courage to buck the press and choose the right!

Hunter, you need to stop paraphrasing people and provide direct quotes. Sorry, it's something you just gotta do because you've already demonstrated that your paraphrases are not very accurate.

Hunter, now for the real, serious question (fundamental issue #2):

Do you feel comfortable with Jeff's statements that he will feel no guilt after causing the inevitable genocide after prematurely evacuating Iraq?

Jeff & Hunter: what is it about this concept that you don't get?

FACT: In order to establish a statement as a lie, you MUST prove that the author KNEW the statement to be false BEFORE making it!!!

This is Basic Lies 101 material.

I refuse to believe that someone purportedly possessing the "logic and reasoning" capabilities of one of the "WORLD'S brightest military researchers" can be so easily bamboozled.

Even I, an ignorant conservative dimwit, get it.

Put up or shut up: prove these were lies as defined above.

Hunter, your hand-waving "it depends upon what the definition of 'lies..." technicality BS" is ludicrous. Your entire post at 10:16:10 is nothing but supposition after conflation after generalization after accusation after... nonsense.

Sorry, that don't cut it.

This is a tacit admission that you KNOW that you have no case.

If you did, you wouldn't have to resort to such nonsensical arguments.

Hunter, I never came away with the impression that Bush claimed, even tangentially, that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Maybe I'm just too ignorant to have noticed.

You keep paraphrasing what you claim Bush said. Please provide exact quotes and references to Bush claiming that Iraq trained Al Qaeda. Ensure you differentiate between that and Al Qaeda training camps being located within Iraq's northern regions.

Hunter, your claim that Senator Craig's statements prove your conspiracy theory that the only reason for the invasion was to acquire oil rights is ludicrous.

It is perfectly congruous to consider the inevitable consequence of prematurely evacuating Iraq and the desire of Iran to wrest control of Iraq's oil from Iraqi democratic control. This WILL happen if we follow your lead, Is that what YOU want?

"He did that in the SOU re: the uraniumin Africa claim. He said 'British intelligence.' Even though WE knew the claim was bogus."

ONCE AGAIN YOU PERPETUATE A LIE! President Bush did not lie about the British intelligence report. That's because The British DID report that Saddam had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. And they STILL stick by that report.

As I wrote previously: "Hunter, you claim that since Iraq has the second largest oil reserves that naturally that is why we went into Iraq. Then what about the undisputed fact that in 1999 an Iraqi offical (Wissam al Zawahie) went to Niger on a trade mission. Yet the only commodity that would be of interest to Iraq is Niger's uranium. Based on your logic that should be THE CONCLUSIVE proof that Iraq was, in fact, seeking to purchase uranium as late as 1999."

Iraq did make the ATTEMPT. Nothing came of it, but they made the attempt NONE THE LESS!

So did you laugh like I did when Bush said he would restore dignity and accountability to the government in 2000? That was a poke at Clinton lying about Lewinsky.

Puhleez, you know how this works. This is the most scripted administration ever. EVERTYHING they say derives from talking points and memos disseminated from the WH (Rove, Cheney etc.), and yes the President approves them. Maybe not EVERY word but the gist, the central theme of a speech or answer to a question in a press conference is managed ahead of time. And why do you think Bush never emails? He has said so - so that there is no record of the conversation, etc, to bite him later.

If he isn’t approving of talking points and he doesn’t know what’s being said so that makes him incompetent. Ask Ken Lay (figuratively speaking) about playing the ignoramus defense.

Hunter,
I wondering if a lie from a liberal is as important as a lie from a conservative. Think about the impeachment issue under B Clinton and his coverups from the time he left Little Rock and the so called Lies you think Bush did?

one more thing I forgot to add, Paul Wolfowitz said they had to use the WMD angle to make the war palatable. In other words, the public wouldn’t buy the crap we were selling if it wasn’t packaged just right.

Marketing. Sleight of hand. Call it what you want. It was a deceit. A lie if you will.